Clement urged the justices to maintain a hands-off approach.Īrizona “did not want to have a diminished-capacity defense,” and its choice should be upheld, he said.Ī ruling in the case of Clark vs. At some times, the law said defendants had to be of “sound mind” and had to have “malice aforethought” before they could be convicted of first-degree murder.įor its part, the Supreme Court has not insisted that states give defendants the right to plead insanity as a defense. Goldberg said there was a long tradition in English and American law of not prosecuting those who were insane and who did not understand the nature and gravity of their crimes. “Is there anything unconstitutional about that?” he asked. Souter said states wanted to strictly limit the notion of insanity because otherwise, criminals and their lawyers would regularly cite mental problems as an excuse.
![instanity cases gone wrong california instanity cases gone wrong california](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/IUwAAOSwPDBaBh~L/s-l640.jpg)
Souter said, and no longer permit “diminished capacity” as an excuse.
![instanity cases gone wrong california instanity cases gone wrong california](https://s24990.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Parents-Commiting-Crimes-5-640x452.jpg)
Most states strictly limit the insanity defense, Justice David H. But most of the justices sounded skeptical of Clark’s claim. If the high court were to rule that mentally disturbed people could be held accountable as criminals, it would have a broad impact. His parents had argued their son should be locked up in a psychiatric facility, not a prison. Three years later, however, he was well enough to be tried before a judge and was convicted. But lawyers for the state argued that Clark did not meet the state’s definition of insanity.Īlthough both sides in the case agreed that Clark had paranoid schizophrenia, Howe said, “the heart of the test is knowing right from wrong.” Since Clark fled the scene and hid the murder weapon, he knew his act was wrong, the state had argued.Īfter his arrest, Clark was judged not fit to stand trial. Probably not, the state’s lawyer responded, because the defendant would be judged insane. Can the state execute such a person? he asked. “Assume he thinks it’s right to kill Martians” and he kills a police officer he believes is a space alien, said Justice John Paul Stevens. Several justices asked about space aliens. “How has the state proved this was an intentional killing of a police officer? The testimony showed he did not think it was a police officer,” she told the state’s lawyer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to agree. A state judge concluded that Clark was not insane because he had fled the crime scene, indicating that he knew the slaying was wrong.Ĭlark was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. In 1993, Arizona had tightened its insanity law, saying mental illness or “diminished capacity” was not a defense to a crime. When a police officer responded to a complaint, Clark fatally shot him and fled. He had been recently discharged from a mental hospital.
![instanity cases gone wrong california instanity cases gone wrong california](https://www.society19.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Selfies-gone-wrong1.jpg)
In June 2000, Clark, then 17, was behaving bizarrely and suffering delusions when he drove his pickup through a neighborhood in the middle of the night, blaring music. The case the justices took up involves Eric Michael Clark of Flagstaff, Ariz. But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether some states may have gone too far. was acquitted on grounds of insanity in the 1981 shooting of President Reagan, states have made it harder for defendants to escape criminal punishment by claiming mental illness.